Whether the District Court failed to review evidence and ignored expert witness testimony in conflict with Supreme Court precedent on summary judgment standards

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : This Fourth Circuit decision affirming the District Courts order “reflected a clear ; misapprehension of summary judgment standards in light of [Supreme Court] precedents” --such as what happened in Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 659, 134 S.Ct. 1861, 1868 (2014) (per curiam). Ignoring Hunters’ detailed facts violated procedural rules and Supreme Court “axiom[s]’, “general rule[s]”, and “fundamental principle{s]” governing summary judgment. Jd., 134 S.Ct. at 651, 656, 660. + Supreme Court precedents require that, “The evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Anderson. v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (1986). That did NOT happen here. * Local Rule 56.1(c) following those precedents was NOT followed: Thus, the QUESTIONS PRESENTED are as follows: 1. Whether the District Court, failing to review such evidence and ignoring the Plaintiffs expert witness testimony, conflict with Supreme Court precedent regarding the general rule that a ‘judge’s function’ at summary judgment is not ‘to weigh the evidence . and determine the truth of the matter but to , determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.’ Anderson, 477 U.S., at 249 . Summary judgment is appropriate only if ‘the movant shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ [FRCP] 56(a). ... a court must view the evidence ‘in the light most favorable to the opposing party.’ Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157, 90 S.Ct. 1598 ... (1970); see also Anderson, supra, at 255. ” Tolan v. Cotton, supra, 134 S.Ct. at 1866. it. . 2. Whether an Insurer purposefully delaying the tendering of policy limits to their policyholder constitutes Breach of Contract, when the misuse of claims handling software was proven to undervalue the claim and the policyholder was offered the proceeds only in exchange for releasing any future bad faith action against their carrier. Wisinski v. American Commerce Group Inc 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 320, *37-38 (W.D.Pa January 4, 2011). An insurance carrier that attempts to coerce an insurer to release her bad faith claim when the policy limit was offered as settlement constitutes bad faith. Tadlock Painting Co v. Maryland Cas. Co 473 S.E.2d 2 (S.C. 1996) We recognize the existence of a cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by an insured against his or her insurer for consequential damages allegedly suffered because of the insurer's bad faith handling of the claims. Poleyn . v. Liberty Mut Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS : 76193 (S.D. Cal. May 30, 2013). The Court considered whether the carrier's late payment of the insureds’ economic damages eliminated a claim for bad faith and held that it does not. : tit